Ohio Learning Standards – Public Feedback Survey Examples

Sample public feedback survey for Fine Arts Standard

World Languages Survey - September 2019

Public Feedback Survey for Sept. 2019 - Oct. 2019

After reviewing the draft world language standards, please complete all three parts of this survey:
- Respond to each statement using “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”
- Provide specific comments or suggestions
- Provide demographic information
Note: This is an anonymous survey that is available to the public. No personally identifiable data is being collected or stored as part of this survey.
Go to top
The five Cs from the national World-Readiness Standards (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Communities) still are demonstrated in the revised learning standards.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Reordering the two Ohio Learning Standards to place the Cultures standard before the Communication standard clearly communicates the importance of embedding culture in all learning and assessment activities to ensure the strong development of language learners’ intercultural skills.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The revised Cultures and Communication learning standards reflect global competency skills students need to learn and prosper in the 21st century.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The consolidation of the Ohio's Learning Standards into one version organized around the first seven sublevels (Novice Low through Advanced Low) of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Scale is logical and will assist teachers in building learners’ language proficiency and intercultural skills.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The benchmarks, performance descriptors and applications for learning are clearly aligned to the 2012 ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Can-Do Statements for Intercultural Competence and Communication created by the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages in partnership with ACTFL.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The benchmarks, performance descriptors and applications for learning are age and cognitively appropriate in a K-12 sequence of language instruction.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The new format of the revised world language learning standards is user-friendly.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
As I look up and down the document at the elements grouped vertically under each of the seven sublevels of proficiency, I note a consistent depth of knowledge and consistent proficiency expectations.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
As I look across the document at the numbered elements for each benchmark, performance descriptor and application for learning from Novice Low to Advanced Low, there is strong evidence of sequential articulation including the purposeful recycling of topics and the scaling up of learning tasks, depth of knowledge and literacy development.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
The revised learning standards document clearly states what students should know and be able to do at each of the first seven sublevels of proficiency as defined by ACTFL.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
All expectations for students are appropriately rigorous.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
All expectations for student learning are relevant.*
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Please list the overall strengths and weaknesses of the document in terms of focus, clarity, rigor, manageability and language proficiency development.*
Do you have any general comments or specific suggestions for improvement to share regarding the revised learning standards?*
- With each suggestion for improvement, please reference the mode of communication, element along the document’s left side, proficiency level and item number that you are addressing (for example, Interpretive Communication, Literacy, Novice High, #3).
- Be sure to provide research or evidence that supports any suggestion you make.
What is your role in education?*
- Teacher
- Administrator
- Curriculum specialist
- Lead teacher/Department chair
- Higher Education
- Parent
- School board member
- Pre-service teacher
- Other stakeholder
If you are a teacher, please check all grade clusters and programs that you teach.*
- Pre-K to grade 5
- Grades 6 to 8
- Grades 9 to 12
- Immersion
- Advanced Placement (AP)
- International Baccalaureate (IB)
- I do not teach a world language.
If applicable, please check the language(s) you teach:*
- Spanish
- French
- German
- Latin
- American Sign Language
- Chinese
- Italian
- Japanese
- Russian
- Arabic
- Greek
- Hebrew
- Exploratory
- ESL
- Other
- Not applicable
If applicable, how many years of experience do you have teaching world languages?*
- 1-5 years
- 6-10 years
- 11-20 years
- >20 years
- Not applicable
Please select ALL of the following with which you have experience or a special concern.*
- Special education
- English learners
- Gifted education
- Urban education
- Community schools
- Private schools
- Home schooling
- None
If you are an educator, please indicate the general typology of the school/district where you work.*
- Large Urban
- Suburban
- Small Town
- Rural
Phone
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.